The Commerce Department failed to investigate subsidies received by cross-owned suppliers of fresh shrimp in the countervailing duty investigation on frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador, petitioner American Shrimp Processors Association argued in a Feb. 21 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The association also contested Commerce's findings that the provision of fuel and brackish water for less than adequate remuneration were not countervailable (American Shrimp Processors Association v. United States, CIT # 25-00026).

Target General Merchandise said in a Feb. 20 response to a U.S. cross-motion for judgment in its classification case that it no longer will be disputing CBP’s classification of its artificial Christmas trees, explaining that the government is already arguing that the trees should be classified under a duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading (Target General Merchandise v. United States, CIT Consol. # 15-00069).

Importer Mitsubishi Power Americas asked leave Feb. 18 from the Court of International Trade to file a short sur-reply to the U.S.’s support of a cross-motion for judgment (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. United States, CIT # 21-00573).

Anti-forced labor advocacy group International Rights Advocates (IRAdvocates) doesn't have standing to challenge CBP's failure to respond to a withhold release order petition to ban cocoa from Cote d'Ivoire, the U.S. argued in a Feb. 20 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The government claimed that IRAdvocates has not established that it suffered an "injury in fact." It also said any alleged injury isn't "traceable" to the "non-issuance of a WRO," and that the alleged injury isn't "redressable" by CBP (International Rights Advocates v. Kristi Noem, Fed. Cir. # 24-2316).

Exporter Nanjing Kaylang's cabinets made from processed phragmite, a type of reed, were reasonably found by the Commerce Department to fall under antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on wooden cabinets from China, Court of International Trade Judge Thomas Aquilino ruled Feb. 21.

The Commerce Department properly included Asia Wheel Co.'s trailer wheels made of Chinese rims and Thai discs in the scope of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on steel trailer wheels from China, the Court of International Trade held in a pair of nearly identical decisions. Judge Gary Katzmann said that Commerce didn't illegally expand the scope of the orders since the agency left open the possibility in the original AD/CVD investigations to discuss mixed-origin wheels in a later scope ruling.

The Court of International Trade on Feb. 20 consolidated nine cases challenging the Commerce Department's scope determination in the antidumping duty investigation on aluminum extrusions from China and nine cases challenging the scope determination in the countervailing duty investigation on the same products. The court also stayed the consolidated cases pending the trade court's first decision in a separate case on the International Trade Commission's injury determination on the products (Dorman Products v. United States, CIT #s 24-00236, -00237).

Dominican exporter Kingtom Aluminio asked the Court of International Trade to expedite its challenge to CBP's finding that the company makes aluminum extrusions using forced labor, arguing that there's a "very real possibility" the company will have to "cease operations and file for bankruptcy as a result of" the forced labor finding (Kingtom Aluminio v. United States, CIT # 24-00264).

In a reply brief Feb. 18, domestic petitioner Wind Tower Trade Coalition again argued that a review respondent’s conversion costs calculation should have been based only on its towers’ physical characteristics, not its monthly production quantity (Wind Tower Trade Coalition v. United States, CIT # 24-00070).

After the Court of International Trade denied hoverboard importer 3BTect’s motion to strike three expert reports from the record of its classification dispute, the importer switched Feb. 14 to targeting the factual basis of the government’s cross-motion for judgment in a 72-page response brief (3BTech v. United States, CIT # 21-00026).